|
Member
(06-13-2012, 11:40 PM)
|
Billionaire gives 10 million to Political Campaign
#1
Quote:
Quote:
Way to go and destroy our democracy SCOTUS! |
|
|
|
fuck yo restraining order
(06-13-2012, 11:47 PM)
|
#9
At the time that Adelson dropped the big bucks on Gingrich, his presence in the campaign wasn't bad for Romney -- it was bad for Santorum. If Gingrich had dropped out, and Santorum had picked up his votes, he could've won states he lost, gotten even more on top of the media horse race and possibly even won the nomination -- momentum counts. Not guaranteed, because Santorum is a total lunatic, after all, but it was definitely a possibility.
|
|
Member
(06-13-2012, 11:49 PM)
|
#11
I wish, but if Romney wins, the payoff potential is enormous. Consider that he owns casino's and is hyper anti-union.
|
|
Member
(06-13-2012, 11:49 PM)
|
#12
such a waste
your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter |
|
Member
(06-13-2012, 11:53 PM)
|
#17
"In an interview with Forbes magazine this year, he suggested he would consider spending as much as $100 million on the 2012 elections."
^ this is the most important part. One rich guy alone is planning to spend 1/10th of what Obama plans to raise total, which by itself is a gigantic amount. America is fucked. Well, unless you're rich. |
|
Member
(06-14-2012, 12:01 AM)
|
#26
|
|
Member
(06-14-2012, 12:01 AM)
|
#27
Disgusting spectacle, and I'd not be at all surprised to see him dwarf that 100 million figure in the slightest.
This is going to be one of the worst election season's in American history, no doubt about it---obscene amounts of money is going to be laundered into the machine and all the public at large will get out of it is copious amounts of red meat, dog whistles, and probably some nutjobs taking things way too far. |
|
Junior Member
(06-14-2012, 12:02 AM)
|
#28
Not 100% sure but I think that the tv stations MUST sell time to political parties for advertisements and they have to sell it at the lowest rate.
|
|
(06-14-2012, 12:03 AM)
|
#29
|
|
Member
(06-14-2012, 12:04 AM)
|
#30
It's not equally. Obama's money still has campaign finance restrictions, meaning lots of people have to donate to get to that number, not just a select few ultra rich people. I agree it'd be better if we had neither though.
|
|
Member
(06-14-2012, 12:10 AM)
|
#33
The money of the super PAC that he's now OK with isn't subject to those restrictions, but my frustration isn't about Obama. It's about such lavish spending by candidates, parties and organizations when so many are still struggling. It's horrible.
|
|
Member
(06-14-2012, 12:11 AM)
|
#34
When people complain about Obama taking Super PAC money and say "well he does it too!", all you have to do is point to shit like this. What can you expect to do when faced with a political opponent capable of raking in this kind of campaign cash from one source alone? Funding a campaign like in 2008 would just be suicide.
|
|
Junior Member
(06-14-2012, 12:14 AM)
|
#37
here in scandinavia.. countries that are accused of being socialistic (we aren't entirely!) our big corps are also sending donations as stretches of favors to the right wing. Im not a guy who believes in bilderburg and all that, but godfucking dammit. you know something is wrong when people halfway around the world are voting for people like michelle bachman. the corporate interests nulify any human decency.
AND THAT IS exactly why no politican should be able to receive private campaign donations. fuck humanity for his lazyness and only voting for the person who sends the most smear campaigns on fox news. regardless of opinion, belief system and orientation, how can we all be so fucked to let it come to this? couch potatos. we all deserve to be enslaved. they say that during the elections of abraham lincoln, they had debates that latest 8 fucking hours. now you get 30 seconds loops before commercials. it's retarded. we're all retarded, but me most of all. |
|
Member
(06-14-2012, 12:14 AM)
|
#38
But that's just me, I have weird expectations. |
|
Member
(06-14-2012, 12:16 AM)
|
#40
|
|
Member
(06-14-2012, 12:56 AM)
|
#42
Wouldn't make a difference in the face of an overwhelming ad campaign of "He'll take your guns away" and "Solyndra something-or-other!" and "Dirty socialist" and "The Obama Recession". This is where we're at in this political environment, if you're grossly outspent by your opponent you're likely fucked. Gotta place at least part of the blame on the retards for whom the months of time they've had to familiarize themselves with the candidates and their policies isn't enough, they need those last-minute 30 second idiotic TV commercials to push them over the fence one way or the other. Fuck them.
|
|
Member
(06-14-2012, 01:32 AM)
|
#45
Brb, spending half a billion dollars worth of ads in every swing state leading up to the election. |
|
lacks enthusiasm.
(06-14-2012, 01:34 AM)
|
#46
There is no silver lining in this recent turn of events. |
|
Member
(06-14-2012, 12:46 PM)
|
#49
The bastard makes $3 million an hour. It is an investment.
Last edited by AB12; 06-14-2012 at 12:48 PM.
|